FRI 8:24AM

Kh
1. My friend can drive from his house to the school in about 10 minutes. The bus I take to school
takes about 10 minutes to get there also. Therefore, the bus and the car are going at the same
speed. Hasty Generalization Slippery Slope Weak Analogy Appeal to Ignorance 2. I met this guy
at the math club and all he did was make fun of other people. Therefore, everyone from the math
club are jerks. Hasty Generalization False Cause Appeal to Unqualified Authority Slippery Slope 3.
I know the answer to every single question you are asking to me. Since you can't prove to me
that I don't know all the questions, that means I do. Weak Analogy Appeal to Ignorance Hasty
Generalization Appeal to Unqualified Authority 4. I really don't think we should let him drive. He's
going to start skipping school and go hang out with his friends instead. Then his grade will drop
down lower and lower. After that, he'll probably become a drug dealer! So, I don't think we
should let him False Cause Appeal to Ignorance Weak Analogy Slippery Slope 5. Mr. Ryan told
me that global warming doesn't exist and we shouldn't worry about it. Since Mr. Ryan is my art
teacher, I'm pretty sure we can trust him. Weak Analogy False Cause Appeal to Unqualified
Authority Appeal to Ignorance 6. My teacher didn't collect the homework two weeks in a row
when my friend was absent. Therefore, my friend being absent is the reason why my teacher
doesn't collect the homework. False Cause Appeal to Ignorance Appeal to Unqualified Authority
Slippery Slope 7. I went to a chess club, and I beat this guy that was playing by himself. Therefore,
I can beat every one at the chess club. Weak Analogy Appeal to Ignorance Hasty Generalization
Appeal to Ignorance 8. Joe and Jack are brothers. Joe like to eat chocolate. Therefore, Jack
probably like to eat chocolate too. Weak Analogy False Cause Appeal to Unqualified Authority
Appeal to Ignorance 9. I can't believe you let Ray join the computer club. He's going to start
buying more expensive stuff. Then, he'll learn how to hack other people's computer. Before you
know it, he'll join a terrorist group and start hacking the military system! Hasty Generalization
Slippery Slope Weak Analogy Appeal to Ignorance 10. I know that there is a secret stage if you
beat the game one hundred times! Since you can't prove it, that means I'm right. False Cause
Slippery Slope Hasty Generalization Appeal to Ignorance

Kh
3.3 Fallacies of Weak Induction In the previous section, we learned about inductive arguments .
These were arguments where the premises STRONGLY supported the conclusion, but the support
was not SO strong as the NECESSITATE or GUARANTEE the conclusion. In this section, we will
look at some inductive types of arguments where the premises only WEAKLY support the
conclusion. Whenever someone concludes something from premises that only provide a very
WEAK support for that conclusion, they are being irrationa l, and committing an informal fallacy;
namely, a fallacy of weak induction . There are 6 varieties of this sort of fallacy. Lets look at
them now. 1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): This fallacy is
committed whenever someone proposes that some conclusion is true because someone who is
NOT an authority on the subject SAID it was true. So, this is exactly like the NON - fallacious
variety of inductive argument that we called appeal to authority in the last lesson except
that th e conclusion is NOT supported when the authority that we are appealing to is not really
an authority at all. For instance, imagine that you have a neigh bor who has never been to Kansas
, and then you stated the following : My neighbor says Kansas is absolutely beautiful, and that
the people are super friendly, and the food is amazing. I think I would l ik e to visit . While your
neighbor MAY happen to be correct (perhaps she found this information in a reliable travel boo
k, or on a reliable internet page; or perhaps she heard this story from a well - traveled reliable
person; etc.), the MERE FACT that she told you so COMBINED with the fact that she is not really in
a position to say what Kansas is like (having never been there ) makes it such that we CANNOT
reliably conclude that the information she is giving us Kansas is correct. Another example of this
fallacy is found in this commercial for Sony Cameras . Celebrities like Peyton Manning and Justin
Timberlake claim to have authoritative knowledge about which cameras are best; but their only
claim to expertise is that lots of photos are taken of them. But, this is not grounds for be ing an
expert about which camera is the best one to purchase. So, drawing any conclusions based on
their recommendations would be irrational. 2. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad
ignorantiam): This fallacy is committed whenever someone concludes that eit her (a) because
they cant see how something could be true, it must be false, or (b) because they cant see how
something could be false, it must be true. 2 In short, this fallacy occurs when someone uses their
own IGNORANCE about something as evidence fo r some CONCLUSION. While it CAN be
rational to make these sorts of inferences for instance, it WOULD be rational to look around
the room Im in and say, I see no elephants in the room Im in. Therefore there ARENT any
elephants in this room the mistake occurs when the speaker is not really in a qualified
position to draw any conclusions from their lack of data. For instance, No ones ever proved for
sure that there werent two shooters at JKFs assassination. So, there must have been two
shooters there . Or: No has ever proven that UFOs arent real. So, they must be real. Or: No
one has ever been able to prove to me that God exists. So, I know that He doesnt exist. The
mere lack of proof on ONE side of the issue in these sorts of cases should NOT be taken as the
evidence for the presence of proof for the OTHER side of the issue. 3. Hasty Generalization
(converse accident): This fallacy is committed whenever someone draws a conclusion about a
WHOLE group after examining only SOME of the membe rs of that group. So, this is exactly like
the NON - fallacious variety of inductive argument called a generalization except that this
sort of conclusion is NOT supported when the group being examined is too small or not random
. As an example of a sample s et which is too small: Ive met three dogs and all of them were
friendly. So, all dogs are friendly. Three dogs is simply not a large enough sample set to draw a
general conclusion about ALL dogs. Here is an example of a sample set which is not random: I
took a survey, and everyone at my church firmly believed in the resurrection of Jesus from the
dead . So, 100% of Americans firmly believe in the resurrection . Here, the sample set is not
representative of the whole because the group being surveyed is not random. A good po ll or
survey will sample a WIDE range of people from many different regions, age groups, races,
genders, religions, income brackets, and so on. 3 It is irrational to conclude something about an
entire group after examining only a tiny, non - randomized por tion of that group. But, not only is
it irrational, it can also often be dangerous . For, hasty generalizations are largely responsible for
acts of stereotyping, racism, sexism, and racial profiling. For instance, consider this inference: All
19 of the hi jackers on 9/11 were from the middle east. Man, those middle - easterners are all a
bunch of terrorists! In short, the smaller your sample group, and the less diverse it is, the less
sure we can be about making generalizations based on the group sampled. But, note: There ARE
exceptions to this. For instance, I tried Diet Coke once, and it was terrible. I even tried it one
more time, just to make sure. And its safe to say: I dont like Diet Coke at all. Here, the sample
set is only TWO sips of Diet C oke. But, this IS a large enough sample set for the conclusion (that
the speaker does not like Diet Coke) to be rational. No fallacy is being committed here but
ONLY because we know certain other facts which make the conclusion reasonable (like the fact th
at the Coca - Cola company maintains a certain standard of consistency, and tries to ensure that
every can of Coke will taste exactly the same as every other can). Jun 12 at 10:45am Sent from
Mobile Kh lmh 4. False Cause: This fallacy is committed whenever someone bases a
conclusion upon the imagin ed existence of a causal connection that probably does not exist.
There are 4 varieties of this fallacy: (a) Coincidence (post hoc ergo propter hoc): This occurs
whenever someone observes one event followed by another, and then concludes that the first
event CAUSED the second. For instance: Its raining. And I left my umbrella at home. But, its only
raining BECAUSE I left my umbrella at home. If I had brought the umbrella with me, it would be
bright and sunny. Here, the speaker mistakes the event of leav ing their umbrella as the CAUSE
of the later event (that it rained). But, it is really just a coincidence. For other examples, watch this
clip from the television show, The Big Bang Theory , or this one from Sesame Street . 4 (b)
Correlation (non causa pro causa): This occurs whenever someone mistakes CORRELATION for
CAUSATION. Correlation is th e fact of two things commonly existing or occurring together, or in
conjunction with one another. But, it is a mistake to think that, just because two things are often
found coupled, that one is CAUSING the other. For instance: All of the really fast r unners wear
Nike shoes. So, if I get some Nike shoes, I will be a really fast runner too! Though it may actually
be TRUE that being fast and wearing Nike shoes are strongly correlated, this does not mean that
it is the Nike shoes that is CAUSING the runn ers to be fast. For more examples of the sorts of
terrible mistakes that can be made by erroneously taking correlation to be an indicator of
causation, watch this excellent TED Tal k on the topic. (c) Oversimplified Cause: This occurs
whenever some effect is the result of a fairly complicated system or chain of causes, but the
observer selects only a small PART of that causal system and mistakes it for the ENTIRE cause. For
instance: Throughout the 1960s, the youth culture experimented more and more with sex,
drugs, and rock and roll. Its all The Beatles fault. It may actually be true that the staggering
popularity of the Beatles followed by their experimentation with drugs had some causal influence
on the way that youth culture developed in the 1960s. But, it is a mistake to think that this one
very small part of a much larger social development was SOLELY responsible for the WHOLE
movement. (d) The Gamblers Fallacy: This occur s whenever someone assumes that two
independent events of random chance are connected because the events are both a part of the
same game. For instance: Wow, this coin has come up heads 5 times in a row. The next one is
BOUND to come up tails! 5 Or : This slot machine hasnt paid out in over an hour. Ive got to
keep playing though, because its SURE to hit the jackpot really soon. The fact is, EVERY time you
flip a coin, the odds that it will come up tails is 50%, no matter how many times in a r ow it has
come up heads . Each flip of the coin is completely causally independent of the previous flip, so
the fact that it has come up heads several times in a row HAS NO CAUSAL INFLUENCE on how
the next flip will turn out. Similarly, if the odds of a jac kpot on a slot machine are one in ten -
million, then the odds are one in ten - million EVERY TIME you pull the lever on the machine, no
matter how long it has been since the machine has hit the jackpot . Unfortunately, gamblers fall
victim to this fallacy qu ite often, and it is what keeps them playing. Ive been losing for hours,
they think. SURELY Ill start winning soon. But the fact that theyve been losing has no influence
whatsoever on the next pull on the slot machine, or the next spin of the roulet te wheel, etc. Note
that gamblers are not the ONLY people who engage in this sort of fallacious reasoning. You
might hear people say things like this: Ive been getting more and more scared to drive lately.
Ive never been in a traffic accident, so I ju st KNOW that one of these days an accident is bound
to happen soon. Or: Its been warm and sunny all week. So, itll probably rain tomorrow and
on my day off, too! The fact that youve driven accident - free for a long time does not cause it
to be more likely that an accident will occur in the near future. Similarly, the fact that its been
sunny for several days in a row does cause it to be more likely that it will rain tomorrow. Both of
these assumptions are fallacious. 5. Slippery Slope: This fallac y is committed whenever someone
concludes something based on an assumption about a chain - reaction that they think will occur
but the chain - reaction is actually (contrary to their assumption) very unlikely. For instance: 6
The government shouldnt regu late AR - 15 assault rifles. If they do that, then pretty soon,
theyll be regulating ALL guns, and then probably knives too! And pretty soon, there will be a law
for everything and you wont be able to move an inch without breaking some law or other. The
possibility that if we regulate one thing, that this will trigger a series of events which will result in
the government regulating EVERYTHING is extremely unlikely. It is therefore irrational to base any
conclusions about whether or not we should ban assa ult rifles on this imagined series of events.
Heres a wonderful example of using the slippery slope fallacy to mislead the customer into
thinking that they really need to buy Direct TV . 6 . Weak Analogy: This fallacy is committed
whenever a conclusion is drawn about something because it is similar to something else. So, this
is exactly like the NON - fallacious variety of inductive argument called the ar gument by
analogy except that a conclusion derived from an analogy is NOT supported if the analogy or
similarity is not very strong. For instance: Meghan is my best friend. I cant wait to meet her
sister tomorrow. I just know were going to hit it off. The mere fact that you are great friends
with one person, does not make it likely that you will ALSO be great friends with ANOTHER
person, just because both people have the same parents. For all you know, Meghans sibling
might be the polar opposite of Meghan. This commercial by Mercedes is a great example of a
conclusion derived from a weak anology. The conclusion is that, since it is absurd to not buy ice
cream if you want it and you can afford it, and have never had any, it must ALSO be absurd to
not buy a Mercedes if you want it and can afford it, and have never had one. But, this conclusion
does not follow at all.

Kh
Philosophy and Logic Before coming to the Informal and Formal Fallacy we must be aware about
argument. An argument consists of a conclusion and one or more than one premises. Conclusion
is simply known as the result of any type of statement while premises are the sentences which are
used to support the conclusion. Fallacy is a type of error in any type of reasoning, an arguments,
containing poor reasoning or in simple words an incorrect argument lacking soundness. This
deviates from the actual facts and figures.e. being wrong about the facts. Sometimes people
themselves use fallacies in their argument just to manipulate and sometimes they themselves are
not aware of what mistake they are committing. Fallacies are defects in arguments just due to
fallacy an argument become invalid and unsound. Lets have few examples Fallacy 01 Fallacy 03
Fallacy 02 Fallacy can be divided into two general groups. Informal and Formal. INFORMAL
FALLACY An Informal fallacy is a common error, it often contain valid argument with false
premises. It can be identified by analyzing the content of the argument. This type of fallacy
contains errors or mistakes both in its form and its content. It is possible that an Argument
having Informal Fallacy may be formally valid, but even then it is fallacious. Knowledge about
Informal fallacies help in locating specific weakness in others argument as well as in your own.
Informal fallacy contains arguments from ignorance, appeal to common sense etc. Following are
Informal fallacies of relevance. Appeal to force.When Force or threat is use in order to justify the
end result/conclusion or answer. For example. If you will not accept my result I will beat you.
Argument against Person. When person or the arguer attacks the source of argument rather than
the argument itself Example. Aslam said, people are not sincere with the country now a days
Noman answered, who are you to decide this? Appeal to pity When the arguer tries to reach to
the occlusion by evoking piety in him or her. Example. If you will not pass me in the exams my
parents will beat me a lot. Appeal to the people.Making Appeal in such a manner to convince
people to the natural desire. Appeal to authority. Using any authority in any argument in order to
support the argument, but that authority has no concern with that argument. Example.My 5th
class teacher told me that Pakistans atomic weapons are not in safe custody. In this example my
teacher has no specific knowledge about this field. Appeal to Ignorance. This Fallacy is based on
assumption that it is true if and only if it cannot be proven as false. Or lack of knowledge of the
arguer about that specific argument. Example. My Gardner told me that the mobile which I have
is not the right choice. Formal Fallacy Formal fallacy is known as Invalid argument. Its a pattern of
reasoning that is always wrong. Formal fallacy is generally found in deductive arguments, which
are considered to be as air tight. The arguments that are not deductively valid are said it commit
a formal fallacy. All humans are mammals (premises) All cats are mammals (premises) So All
humans are cats. (Conclusion) Both the premise are very much correct but the conclusion
extracted from them is 100% wrong.In formal fallacy the premises and the pattern of the
argument are correct but the conclusion which is extracted from them does not tell the reality. All
dates are fruits (premises) 3 may is a date (premises) So 3 may is a fruit. (Conclusion)

Kh
Fallacies of Weak Induction Fallacies of weak induction occur not when the premises are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion but when the premises are not strong enough to support the
conclusion. Appeal to Unqualified Authority Mr. Turner, president of the Big Pine Lumber
Company, has said that we should chop down all the redwoods and sell the timber to stimulate
the local economy. In view of Mr. Turner's experience with the lumber business, it appears that
we should indeed do this. Omar the Magnificent, who is this country's greatest astrologer, says
that the AIDS epidemic is caused by a perverse alignment of the planets, and that there is
nothing anyone can do about it. therefore, we can only conclude that all of these efforts to find a
cure for AIDS are a waste of time. Though testimony sometimes does provide strong evidence in
support of a conclusion, it does so only when the authority in question is trustworthy. Authorities
that are biased, not experts in the relevant fields, or not otherwise trustworthy cannot lend
credible support to a conclusion. Appeal to Ignorance Nobody has ever proved the existence of
ghosts. Therefore, we have alternative but to conclude that ghosts are mere figments of the
imagination. Occurs when premises of an argument offer in support of a conclusion the fact that
nothing has been proved either way regarding the conclusion. Exception 1: Sometimes qualified
researchers do find no support for a conclusion after a reasonable amount of study. It may then
be reasonable to infer that the conclusion cannot be supported. Exception 2: In some legal
systems no evidence presented one way or the other means the defendant is not guilty. Hasty
Generalization A reporter in the local newspaper exaggerated her story just to make it appear
more exciting, and a reporter on the evening news got his facts mixed up. Therefore, you can't
trust anyone in the news media these days. Occurs when an argument draws a conclusion about
a group when the sample is inadequate to support the generalization, perhaps because it is
unrepresentative or too small. Hasty generalization is sometimes called "converse accident" False
Cause Every time I take a shower, the telephone rings. Since I'm dying to talk to somebody right
now, I should jump in the shower. Occurs when the link between the premises and conclusion
depends on a questionable causal connection. Some arguments wrongly assume that just
because one event precedes another the former caused the latter. Some alleged causal
relationships are spurious. Sometimes the causal order is reversed. Sometimes the cause is
oversimplified. Slippery Slope The student association has asked that we provide condom
machines on campus. this request is ridiculous. If these machines are installed, then more and
more students will start engaging in premarital sex. This will lead to a complete erosion of morals,
and soon the students will start lying and stealing. Rape, arson, and murder will soon become
rampant. In the end, the campus will totally disintegrate. Occurs when the conclusion rests upon
an improbable chain reaction. Weak Analogy No one would blame a bartender for having a few
drinks on the job. but an airline pilot is no less a human being than a bartender. So, no one
should blame an airline pilot for having a few drinks on the job. Occurs when an analogy upon
which the argument depends is too weak to support the argument.

Kh
Fallacies of Weak Induction Fallacies of weak induction occur not when the premises are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion but when the premises are not strong enough to support the
conclusion. Appeal to Unqualified Authority Mr. Turner, president of the Big Pine Lumber
Company, has said that we should chop down all the redwoods and sell the timber to stimulate
the local economy. In view of Mr. Turner's experience with the lumber business, it appears that
we should indeed do this. Omar the Magnificent, who is this country's greatest astrologer, says
that the AIDS epidemic is caused by a perverse alignment of the planets, and that there is
nothing anyone can do about it. therefore, we can only conclude that all of these efforts to find a
cure for AIDS are a waste of time. Though testimony sometimes does provide strong evidence in
support of a conclusion, it does so only when the authority in question is trustworthy. Authorities
that are biased, not experts in the relevant fields, or not otherwise trustworthy cannot lend
credible support to a conclusion. Appeal to Ignorance Nobody has ever proved the existence of
ghosts. Therefore, we have alternative but to conclude that ghosts are mere figments of the
imagination. Occurs when premises of an argument offer in support of a conclusion the fact that
nothing has been proved either way regarding the conclusion. Exception 1: Sometimes qualified
researchers do find no support for a conclusion after a reasonable amount of study. It may then
be reasonable to infer that the conclusion cannot be supported. Exception 2: In some legal
systems no evidence presented one way or the other means the defendant is not guilty. Hasty
Generalization A reporter in the local newspaper exaggerated her story just to make it appear
more exciting, and a reporter on the evening news got his facts mixed up. Therefore, you can't
trust anyone in the news media these days. Occurs when an argument draws a conclusion about
a group when the sample is inadequate to support the generalization, perhaps because it is
unrepresentative or too small. Hasty generalization is sometimes called "converse accident" False
Cause Every time I take a shower, the telephone rings. Since I'm dying to talk to somebody right
now, I should jump in the shower. Occurs when the link between the premises and conclusion
depends on a questionable causal connection. Some arguments wrongly assume that just
because one event precedes another the former caused the latter. Some alleged causal
relationships are spurious. Sometimes the causal order is reversed. Sometimes the cause is
oversimplified. Slippery Slope The student association has asked that we provide condom
machines on campus. this request is ridiculous. If these machines are installed, then more and
more students will start engaging in premarital sex. This will lead to a complete erosion of morals,
and soon the students will start lying and stealing. Rape, arson, and murder will soon become
rampant. In the end, the campus will totally disintegrate. Occurs when the conclusion rests upon
an improbable chain reaction. Weak Analogy No one would blame a bartender for having a few
drinks on the job. but an airline pilot is no less a human being than a bartender. So, no one
should blame an airline pilot for having a few drinks on the job. Occurs when an analogy upon
which the argument depends is too weak to support the argument. Jun 12 at 10:22am Sent from
Mobile Kh lmh Create 16 terms StudySonya Fallacies of Weak Induction (in class)
Chapter 3.3 Informal Fallacies STUDY Flashcards Learn Spell Test PLAY Match Gravity Like this
study set? Create a free account to save it. Advertisement Upgrade to remove ads Sort fallacies of
weak induction occur when the connection between premises and conclusion of an argument is
not strong enough to support the conclusion. fallacies of weak induction may involve emotional
grounds of believing the conclusion. appeal to unqualified authority it is a variety of the
"argument from authority." When authority or witness lacks credibility. appeal to unqualified
authority example: "Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, and Pat Buchanan say such and such about
immigration and immigrants. Therefore, we may take granted such and such. appeal of ignorance
occurs when the premises state nothing has been proved on way or another, followed by a
conclusion which asserts that something is either true of false. appeal of ignorance example: "We
don't know how many, if any, of illegal immigrants are smugglers. Therefore, all illegal
immigrants (at least potentially) are smugglers." hasty generalization It is a variety of the
inductive argument form, "generalization" hasty generalization example: "Tens of thousands of
illegal immigrants are criminals. Therefore, all illegal immigrants (at least potentially) are
criminals." false cause the fallacies of false cause occurs whenever the link between premises and
conclusion depends on some imagined casual connection which probable does not exist. There
are four main varieties. false cause example: "During the past two months, every time that the
cheerleaders have worn blue ribbions in their hair, the basketball team has been defeated.
Therefore, to prevent defeats in the future, the cheerleaders should get rid of those blue
ribbions." non causa pro causa (one of the four main false causes) occurs when something taken
to be the cause of another thing is not a cause XX ( need to oversimplified cause (one of the four
main false causes) occurs when an arguer isolates one cause among several and presents it as the
sole cause. It is usually motivated by self-serving interest, especially to unfairly shift credit or
blame. gambler's fallacy (one of the four main false causes) occurs whenever the conclusion of an
argument depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are casually
related. slippery slope occur when the conclusion of an argument rests on a alleged chain of
events xx (need to weak analogy (variety of argument of analogy) The fallacy occurs when the
analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion which is drawn. weak analogy example:
"This house has a really nice paint job, a really nice lawn, a really nice driveway xx (need to edit)
Advertisement